Isaac | 1 Feb 02:32 2006

Re: GPL and other licences

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:52:32 +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>    To clarify it a bit: providing source code is not the question
>    here. I just want to know if it is legal to use the differently
>    licensed software in such manner, namely: personal/internal use
>    eventhough the licences exclude eachother
> 
> This boils down to: Can you break the law at home?  Of course you
> can't.  So the same applies to the GPL.  Since you cannot mix two
> incompatible licenses legally, then you cannot do this in the privacy
> of your own internal use.  It would in the end still be a violation of
> copyright law.

No it does not quite boil down to that.  What it boils down to is whether
the GPL grants permission to so mix the software at home as long as
you do not distribute the combination.

Looking at the GPL, it seems to me that modifying GPL software and not 
distributing it merely requires providing some notices in the software.  
Unless the non GPLed software has some usage restriction that prevents you 
modifying or combining the other code with GPL software, I believe that the 
GPL allows you to combine or modify as you like on your own system for 
your own use.  In fact, you could use the combination internally within a
single business organization as doing so does not constitute distribution.

No significant GPL restriction kicks in until you try to distribute your
combination.

Isaac
Isaac | 1 Feb 02:40 2006

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:27:38 -0600, John Hasler <john <at> dhh.gt.org> wrote:
> Rex writes:
>> I've seen a lot of people say that if you modify GPL code and run it on a
>> server (e.g. I modify MySQL and then use it as a database for my shopping
>> website), you don't have to GPL your modifications.
> 
> It's bloody well obvious.  Read the license.
> 
>> Can anyone point me to an official statement on this by the FSF or
>> another authority?
> 
> Ask your lawyer.

There was a lot of rhetoric about the FSF wanting to change this for GPLv3.
I don't know if that happened, but somewhere in the FSF or RMS explanations
of why they needed a new version of the GPL ought to be some pretty official
discussion of this issue.

I heard somewhere the the MySQL people had their own opinion about this.

Isaac
Claudio Nieder | 1 Feb 02:58 2006
Picon

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

Hi,

> This isn't something related to the GPLv3, it is related to how patent
> law works.  So it is your task to check that you are not violating any
> patents, and you cannot put the burden on someone else.  This is one
> of the major problem with software patents, it is impossible to check
> that you are violating single or several patents, they are written in
> a very vauge language.

Not really. Living in a country which does not have software patents,
patent law does not concern me a lot. It would only if I start selling
my software e.g. into the US. And I have to fear only a lawsuite from
the side of the patent holder.

I fear GPL3 makes the situation worse for me, and want to know if this
is true.

Let's say I take GPLv3ed Program xyz and add to it some code. I don't
conduct any investigation about wether my code infringes on any patents,
as in Switzerland this is a non-issue. So I give modified xyz to a friend
here in Switzerland, who gives it to person X who lives in the USA.

With GPL2 I wouldn't see any problems for myself. The point I'm unsure
about is this sentence in GPL3:

"When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to the
recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work,"
               ===============================================

Can Person X sue me for violating GPL3 because of that sentence and ask me
(Continue reading)

Barry Margolin | 1 Feb 03:20 2006
Picon

Re: GPL and other licences

In article <43DF5814.D43B9C65 <at> web.de>,
 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov <at> web.de> wrote:

> Fung wrote:
> > 
> > Dear folks,
> > 
> > I am currently doing some research on open source licences and while
> > reading the GPL licence the following question arose: Distributing a
> > derivative work combined from software licensed under [whatever]
> 
> Combining software doesn't create a derivative work under copyright 
> law. If anything, it creates a compilation, not a derivative work.
...
> 
> consider the case of two scientific papers which reference each other.
> The fact that paper B calls paper A (references it for support) does
> not make B a derivative work of A. This remains true whether B and A
> are published together in a symposium (analogous to static linkage) or
> separately (analogous to dynamic linkage). Computer programs are
> defined in 17 USC as literary works

But that's not really a good analogy.  Combining two programs is not 
just making references, you actually merge parts of one program into a 
copy of the other.  To use your analogy to scientific papers, it would 
be like copying sections of B into A rather than referring to them in a 
footnote.

I think a compilation usually means that the original works can be 
recognized as distinct components of the result.  A conference 
(Continue reading)

Barry Margolin | 1 Feb 03:26 2006
Picon

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

In article <pan.2006.02.01.01.58.56.273020 <at> claudio.ch>,
 Claudio Nieder <private <at> claudio.ch> wrote:

> Let's say I take GPLv3ed Program xyz and add to it some code. I don't
> conduct any investigation about wether my code infringes on any patents,
> as in Switzerland this is a non-issue. So I give modified xyz to a friend
> here in Switzerland, who gives it to person X who lives in the USA.

Section 12 says "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free 
redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly 
through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this 
License would be to refrain entirely from distribution."  However, 
Section 13 contains the following way to get around this in your case: 
"If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain 
countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original 
copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an 
explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, 
so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus 
excluded."

--

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar <at> alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
John Hasler | 1 Feb 03:15 2006

Re: Running modified GPL software on a server

Isaac writes:
> There was a lot of rhetoric about the FSF wanting to change this for GPLv3.
> I don't know if that happened...

There is no hint of it in the draft.
--

-- 
John Hasler 
john <at> dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
John Hasler | 1 Feb 04:10 2006

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

Barry Margolin writes:
> Section 12 says "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
> redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly
> through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License
> would be to refrain entirely from distribution."

He neither needs nor has a license so this does not apply.
--

-- 
John Hasler 
john <at> dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
John Hasler | 1 Feb 04:02 2006

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

claudio quotes:
> "When you distribute a covered work, you grant a patent license to the
> recipient, and to anyone that receives any version of the work..."

That refers to patents you own and which would otherwise be infringed by
users of the work.  If you don't own any patents it is irrelevant to you.
It would be ridiculous to require that you grant licenses to patents you do
not control or even know about.
--

-- 
John Hasler 
john <at> dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Claudio Nieder | 1 Feb 12:37 2006
Picon

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

Hi,

>> Section 12 says "if a patent license would not permit royalty-free
>> redistribution by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly
>> through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License
>> would be to refrain entirely from distribution."
> 
> He neither needs nor has a license so this does not apply.

It the second part it says: "The sole purpose of this section is to
protect the integrity of the free software distribution system."

I hope it is not understood as absolute protection, but only against
redistributor who wants to restrict source redistribution on purpose
through patent licence they own.

claudio
--

-- 
Claudio Nieder, Kanalweg 1, CH-8610 Uster, Tel +41 79 357 6743
yahoo messenger: claudionieder aim: claudionieder icq:42315212
mailto:private <at> claudio.ch                http://www.claudio.ch
Alan Mackenzie | 1 Feb 12:08 2006
Picon

Re: GPL 3 and patents question

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <ams <at> gnu.org> wrote on Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:43:54 +0100:
>    Let's assume, that GPL 3 is finalized as is today, and that at that
>    time the country I live in - Switzerland - still does not allow
>    patents on software.

> Software patents are still illegal in the majority of European
> countries.

>    I write some software on my own, and because I live in Switzerland
>    I do not care about if what I write is infringing any patents in
>    some other countries. I decide to not keep the software for myself
>    but rather make it available to others by publishing it.

>    Q1: Can I use GPL 3 or would that force me to verify my software is
>    encumbered by patents to not violate myself the terms of the GPL 3,
>    or be forced to license the patent I would infringe outside of the
>    place I live?

[ .... ]

>    Q3: If answer to Q2 ist, that I cannot transfer the obligation to
>    check for patents to the user, can I simply license the software
>    under GPL 3 with the added clause, that someone may use the
>    software only in places which do not know about software patents?

Yes.

> This would also make the software non-free.  The ability to use it for
> any purpose, anywhere in the world, is a right that all users must
> have.
(Continue reading)


Gmane